Download PDF
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · Rev Bras Ortop (Sao Paulo) 2021; 56(01): 053-060
DOI: 10.1055/s-0040-1709989
Artigo Original
Joelho

Estudo comparativo da função e qualidade de vida de pacientes submetidos à artroplastia total do joelho com plataformas tibiais fixa e móvel

Article in several languages: português | English
Daiane Cavenaghi Nacca
1   Departamento de Ortopedia e Traumatologia, Escola Paulista de Medicina, Universidade Federal de São Paulo, São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil
,
Joicemar Tarouco Amaro
1   Departamento de Ortopedia e Traumatologia, Escola Paulista de Medicina, Universidade Federal de São Paulo, São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil
,
Mateus Kenji Christo Miyahira 
2   Instituto Cohen de Ortopedia e Reabilitação e Medicina do Esporte, São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil
,
João Victor Novaretti 
1   Departamento de Ortopedia e Traumatologia, Escola Paulista de Medicina, Universidade Federal de São Paulo, São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil
,
Diego Costa Astur 
1   Departamento de Ortopedia e Traumatologia, Escola Paulista de Medicina, Universidade Federal de São Paulo, São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil
,
Moisés Cohen
1   Departamento de Ortopedia e Traumatologia, Escola Paulista de Medicina, Universidade Federal de São Paulo, São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil
› Author Affiliations
› Further Information
Also available at
   Permissions and Reprints

Resumo

Objetivo Comparar a função e qualidade de vida dos pacientes submetidos a artroplastia total de joelho (ATJ) com plataforma tibial fixa e plataforma tibial móvel.

Métodos Foram avaliados 240 pacientes com diagnóstico de osteoartrose de joelho, em um ensaio clínico, randomizados em dois grupos: grupo A, composto por 120 pacientes submetidos a ATJ com plataforma tibial fixa, e grupo B, formado por 120 pacientes com plataforma móvel. Todos foram avaliados de acordo com a função e qualidade de vida pelos questionários de Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index (WOMAC) e Short Form Health Survey(SF-36), e escores de dor, por meio da escala visual analógica (EVA) de dor, no pré-operatório e com 6meses, 1ano, 2anos, 4anos e 8anos de cirurgia.

Resultados Com relação aos diversos domínios do SF-36, o comportamento médio dos escores de capacidade funcional, aspectos físicos, dor e aspectos emocionais foram estatisticamente diferentes ao longo do seguimento, em ambos os grupos. Os demais domínios de qualidade de vida não apresentaram diferenças. Assim como na EVA de dor, o escore médio do WOMAC de dor apresentou melhora ao longo do seguimento em ambos os grupos. Entretanto, com dois anos de seguimento, foram estaticamente piores no grupo A, se igualando ao grupo B nos outros momentos de acompanhamento.

Conclusão Com 2anos de pós-operatório, os escores de dor do WOMAC e daEVA foram piores no grupo submetido aATJ com plataforma tibial fixa. Porém, as diferenças não permaneceram no médioprazo, sugerindo que a artroplastia com plataforma tibial móvel tem uma vantagem no curto prazo, podendo auxiliar no processo de reabilitação.

Palavras-chave

artroplastia do joelho - qualidade de vida - osteoartrose


Publication History

Received: 08 July 2019

Accepted: 27 January 2020

Article published online:
08 July 2020

© 2020. Sociedade Brasileira de Ortopedia e Traumatologia. This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCommercial License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commercial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)

Thieme Revinter Publicações Ltda.
Rua do Matoso 170, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, CEP 20270-135, Brazil

 

  • Referências

  • 1 Lanza IR, Towse TF, Caldwell GE, Wigmore DM, Kent-Braun JA. Effects of age on human muscle torque, velocity, and power in two muscle groups. J Appl Physiol (1985) 2003; 95 (06) 2361-2369
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Narici MV, Maganaris C, Reeves N. Myotendinous alterations and effects of resistive loading in old age. Scand J Med Sci Sports 2005; 15 (06) 392-401
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Herzog W, Longino D. The role of muscles in joint degeneration and osteoarthritis. J Biomech 2007; 40 (Suppl. 01) S54-S63
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Laborde JM, Powers MJ. Life satisfaction, health control orientation, and illness-related factors in persons with osteoarthritis. Res Nurs Health 1985; 8 (02) 183-190
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Downe-Wamboldt B. Coping and life satisfaction in elderly women with osteoarthritis. J Adv Nurs 1991; 16 (11) 1328-1335
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Dickstein R, Heffes Y, Shabtai EI, Markowitz E. Total knee arthroplasty in the elderly: patients' self-appraisal 6 and 12 months postoperatively. Gerontology 1998; 44 (04) 204-210
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Heck DA, Robinson RL, Partridge CM, Lubitz RM, Freund DA. Patient outcomes after knee replacement. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1998; (356) 93-110
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Bachmeier CJ, March LM, Cross MJ. et al. Arthritis Cost and Outcome Project Group. A comparison of outcomes in osteoarthritis patients undergoing total hip and knee replacement surgery. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 2001; 9 (02) 137-146
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Hartley RC, Barton-Hanson NG, Finley R, Parkinson RW. Early patient outcomes after primary and revision total knee arthroplasty. A prospective study. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2002; 84 (07) 994-999
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Mäntyselkä P, Kumpusalo E, Ahonen R, Takala J. Patients' versus general practitioners' assessments of pain intensity in primary care patients with non-cancer pain. Br J Gen Pract 2001; 51 (473) 995-997
    Google Scholar
  • 11 Janse AJ, Gemke RJ, Uiterwaal CS, van der Tweel I, Kimpen JL, Sinnema G. Quality of life: patients and doctors don't always agree: a meta-analysis. J Clin Epidemiol 2004; 57 (07) 653-661
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 O'Boyle CA. Assessment of quality of life in surgery. Br J Surg 1992; 79 (05) 395-398
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Givon U, Ginsberg GM, Horoszowski H, Shemer J. Cost-utility analysis of total hip arthroplasties. Technology assessment of surgical procedures by mailed questionnaires. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 1998; 14 (04) 735-742
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Ethgen O, Bruyère O, Richy F, Dardennes C, Reginster JY. Health-related quality of life in total hip and total knee arthroplasty. A qualitative and systematic review of the literature. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2004; 86 (05) 963-974
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Ware Jr J, Kosinski M, Keller SDA. A 12-Item Short-Form Health Survey: construction of scales and preliminary tests of reliability and validity. Med Care 1996; 34 (03) 220-233
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Wylde V, Learmonth I, Potter A, Bettinson K, Lingard E. Patient-reported outcomes after fixed- versus mobile-bearing total knee replacement: a multi-centre randomised controlled trial using the Kinemax total knee replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2008; 90 (09) 1172-1179
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Jacobs W, Anderson P, Limbeek J, Wymenga A. Mobile bearing vs fixed bearing prostheses for total knee arthroplasty for post-operative functional status in patients with osteoarthritis and rheumatoid arthritis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2004; (02) CD003130
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Núñez M, Núñez E, del Val JL. et al. Health-related quality of life in patients with osteoarthritis after total knee replacement: factors influencing outcomes at 36 months of follow-up. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 2007; 15 (09) 1001-1007
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Kirkwood BR, Sterne JA. Essential medical statistics. 2nd ed. Massachusetts, USA: Blackwell; 2006
    Google Scholar
  • 20 McCullagh P, Nelder JA. Generalized linear models. 2nd ed. New York, USA: Chapman and Hall; 1989
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Neter J, Kutner MH, Nachtsheim CJ, Wasserman W. Applied Linear Statistical Models. 4th ed. Ilinois: Richard D. Irwing; 1996
    Google Scholar
  • 22 Bhan S, Malhotra R, Kiran EK, Shukla S, Bijjawara M. A comparison of fixed-bearing and mobile-bearing total knee arthroplasty at a minimum follow-up of 4.5 years. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2005; 87 (10) 2290-2296
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Matsuda S, Mizu-uchi H, Fukagawa S. et al. Mobile-bearing prosthesis did not improve mid-term clinical results of total knee arthroplasty. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2010; 18 (10) 1311-1316
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Aglietti P, Baldini A, Buzzi R, Lup D, De Luca L. Comparison of mobile-bearing and fixed-bearing total knee arthroplasty: a prospective randomized study. J Arthroplasty 2005; 20 (02) 145-153
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Hofmann S, Seitlinger G, Djahani O, Pietsch M. The painful knee after TKA: a diagnostic algorithm for failure analysis. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2011; 19 (09) 1442-1452
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar